From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: RE: keeping Jeremy happy
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:16:27 +0100
> Thanks Peter, again, for these improvements ...
>
> I hope I am not the only who cares about making OWL DL useable with RDF.
>
> My main concern at the level of the documents is that the restrictions
> implicit in this mapping are not expressed clearly enough elsewhere. In fact,
> I would go as far as to say that the other document authors appear unaware of
> the restrictions.
I would agree with this.
> I still feel that the extent of this restrictions is excessive and should be
> revised further downward further.
>
> I have some clarification questions, mainly so that I can make correct
> comments about the other documents.
>
> 1: Is a document of a single triple e.g.
>
> _:x <eg:a> <eg:b> .
>
> or
>
> <eg:x> <eg:d> "foo" .
>
> a legal OWL Lite document?
No. The documents are ambiguous, in that they could either be a
statement about an OWL individual or a ``non-logical'' annotation.
> 2: Can an OWL/DL document import one that is not OWL/DL.
> Can an OWL/Lite doc import one that is not OWL/Lite?
Sure, but the result might not be OWL/DL or OWL/Lite.
I have not put adequate thought into this issue. I may be able to work on
it today.
> 3: Can an OWL DL document import two OWL DL documents that use the same URI
> refs differently (e.g. <eg:a> as an Individual ID in one, and as an
> ObjectPropertyID in the other).
No. Again this issue has not been adequately addressed. (The idea is
addressed in the RDFS semantics section, by the way.)
> 4: Given the following file at <a>
>
> <a#p> rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty .
> <a#c> rdf:type owl:Class .
>
> is the following file in OWL DL?
>
> <> owl:imports <a> .
> <x> rdf:type owl:Class .
> <x> owl:subClassOf _:r .
> _:r rdf:type owl:Restiction .
> _:r owl:onProperty <a#p> .
> _:r owl:minCardinality "1"^^xsd:integer .
>
> or the following file:
>
> <> owl:imports <a> .
> <y> rdf:type <a#c> .
Not right now. They probably should be, and I will see if I can arrange it so.
I *think* that a simple change - to using what is in effect the OWL imports
closure of an RDF graph instead of the graph itself - is adequate.
> Jeremy
peter